The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-06-23
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

BALM.
In the case of Lyon & Gribble VS.. E. r.
Logan, ct sal from Clay county, the
judgment is reversed and the cause is re-
manded.
The action was to recover from E. X.
Logan the value of material alleged to
have been furnished and used in erecting
business houses in Henrietta, and to
enforce the lien for material. Strln d
Eustes were made defendants as claiming
some right in the property through Logan
since the material was furnished.
There was Issue as to the particular
houses to which the material was applied,
and as to whether the bill of particulars
was properly recorded, it being in the
bill of sale book, and not as the law
directs, in book kept for the purpose of
recording mechanics liens.
The court, through Justice Stayton,
holds that the material mans lien will be
restricted to the property on which he has
the right to lien, although he may assert
claim to a lien on other property.
Further, that the fact that the book in
which the account and accompanying
statement were rendered, may have been
used to record bills of sale would not
affect the validity of the record, If, in fact
the book was the one kept for the pur-
pose of recording all mechanics liens.
Z he statute does not provide that the book
shall be kept exclusively for the purpose
of recording such liens.
There are other minor points consid-
ered
The Day Land and Cattle company, APP
pellant, VS.. the State OF Texas, appellee.
Appeal from Travis county; opinion by
Stayton, associate justice.
This action was brought by the state of
Texas through the attorney-general, to
establish the right of the state to 144,640
acres of land situated in Greer county.
Patents for these lands were issued to APP
pellants upon land certificates issued I'M
der virtue of act of March 10, 1881. The
case was decided under thirteen groups
presented by brief of appellant.
First-As to power of attorney-g
to bring this suit. This express power is
contained in neither the constitution nor
general laws, nor is there any
implied power to that effect. But the
act of April l, 1887, recognizes the
right to bring such suits as being in the
yttorney general, and this ratification is
retroactive, and this suit must stand as
though the attorney general and district
attorney had had express authority to
institu and maintain it,
Second-That the petition did not state
a cause of action; i. e., as alleging that the
state was in possession of the land
and ousted by defendants, and that the
petition was not petition in trespass to
try title. Several irregularities in plead
ings had been condoned by defendants,
and the court would hold it as trespass to
title and give general relief.
Third-Greer county was a territory
disputed between Texas and the United
States, and therefore the amount of
ownership in the title was insufficient to
bring suit. The laws of the state are
in force in Greer county and the courts are
bound to recognize the boundaries of the
state as the legislature fixes them, and to
regard all lands within these boundaries
as the property of the state.
Fourth-That the state could not main
tain this suit until the lands in Greer
county chad been surveyed or allotted for
the public fund or for the payment OF
the public debt" If the act of February
%, 1879, be valid and unrepealed, the land
in controversy was appropriated, vested
in the state, and it is matter of no i'm
portance to the defendant whether the
state holds the lands to be used to pro-
cure fund for one or the other or tol
, both of the purposes named in the act.
Fifth-The action of the governor anc
commissioner of general land Office in is
l suing patents is conclusive of their right
s to issue and not receivable by any othe
+ coordinate branch of the state govern
=, ment
This is only true if the powers they
; assume to exercise are conferred npOr
them by the constitution and tn
laws, if not SO conferred, thel
their action is subject to re
q view. by the judiciary, when the constitu
ton places this under control of ju
1 dietary. "The power to determine wha
' part of the public domain shall be appro
priated to specific purposes, and thu
withdrawn from appropriation by indi
viduals, except as this may be limited b.
the constitution, rests with the legisla
I ture, and neither the governor nor com
Q missioner of general land Office have thu
o power to determine whether such dis
o cretionary power has been wisely exer
' cised, nor to disregard the Legislative
s will manifested by law passed in thu
+ manner prescribed by the constitution
. and in defiance of it issue patents TO
n land thus withdrawn from individual ap
l. propriation." In such cases the judiciar,
d have authority to reverse the decision o
d the governor and commissioner of genera
l. land Office.
Sixth-It is claimed act of Februar,
y, %, 1879 is invalid because it contain
:. more than one subject. Subject ant
o s'obiect" have been considered as virtual,
Q the same. The object of this act wa
s single and that would obvi lte this consti
d tutional objection.
f Seventh-As to the way in which tn
s act of February 20, 1879, passed the legis
/ lature. "The legislature ascertains in it
is own way the facts on which it bases it
;, action, and it is made the sole judg
G whether facts exist to authorize the i'm
n mediate passage of bill; and whateve
" facts or reasons it may give for sue
action must be held sufficient"
r Eighth-The emergency clause was suf
O fciently explicitly stated, but if no
V it would not have affected this case, a
= ninety days after adjournment Of the leg
70 islature, passed before any rights wer
l. acquired by the defendants.
Is Ninth-The constitution says bill
10 shall go before ga committees" one com
|, mittee was enough, and the senate com
"a mittee in this case was sufficient; but i